Rick Warren covers his bases here by fundamentally (so to speak) arguing that whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (like arsenic) or an impulse/desire (like punching a guy in the nose), that doesn't make it right. And, frankly, he's correct: arguing that something is what you want to do, or what you are naturally compelled to do — neither makes a wrong act moral or ethical or constructive or "right."
But Warren can only make the argument by skipping over an important part: his premise that homosexuality is wrong and cannot therefore be defended based on it being either innate or a voluntary desire. Because, to apply Warren's own arguments, innate impulses or voluntary desires are not intrinsically right or wrong in and of themselves.
The argument should be over the question, "Is homosexuality intrinsically wrong?" Because whatever the answer is, the origin of homosexual orientation (genetic, congenital, or simply a matter of taste) doesn't really matter. And to make such a judgment requires proof along some objective criteria that we can all agree with.
And, by the way, Rick — in such a discussion, your interpretations of your particular religion's holy book serve only as a basis for your personal moral decisions, not for public policy or law. Unless you want to let all religions, and non-religious, have a say in what we eat, how we dress, who we can marry, what we keep holy, etc.
Reshared post from +Think Progress
Stay classy!
Embedded Link
Rick Warren: Being Gay Is Like ‘Punching A Guy In The Nose’ Or Consuming Arsenic
Megachurch pastor Rick Warren remains as ill-informed on gay identity as ever. Unfazed by the notion that there may be a biological cause for homosexuality, Warren told Piers Morgan on CNN this week t…
Google+: View post on Google+
So, I have to wonder….. is there a 'natural' basis for being homosexual? I mean, what "natural" conclusion could it come to? Man is attracted to Woman in order for procreation to occur (barring any physical abnormalities in being able to reproduce)…so why is Man attracted to Man or Woman attracted to Woman?
Is it an aberrant behavior looking at it from a 'nature' perspective?
If you define "natural" as "average," then, sure. But, then, so is being left-handed. Or lactose-tolerant.
And, of course, "natural" meaning "leading to procreation" means there's a lot of _un_natural behavior that goes on out there, from delaying marriage to vows of celibacy to use of birth control. Or, for that matter, the social and religious restrictions we've put on who should have sex with whom and when.
If you mean, "is there an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality," I can't think of an obvious one (or at least not one that would seem significant enough from a socio-biological perspective).
Nevertheless, "nature" is full of creatures and people who might be considered aberrant in some fashion. While evolutionary forces would tend to suppress any genetic factor (assuming a genetic factor) that isn't passed on, it's unlikely that there is a single "gay" gene (there are rarely single genes for anything), so that enough of the components get passed along in normal human mating to occasionally combine to maintain the small percentage of the population who express that way. In that sort of situation, homosexuality is not an advantage, but its genetic components may be.
One could look at this from a social perspective as easily, substituting memes for genes. With only a few exceptions, homosexuality has usually been a significant social disadvantage, such that those who engage in it are under intense social pressure to not do so. Which actually argues for a genetic (or congenital) component, since societal condemnation of homosexual behavior in so much of history has not prevented it from occurring, or continuing to occur (i.e., the argument, "If this were a choice, do you think I would choose dealing with all this?").
In either case, it doesn't argue for a moral conclusion, unless procreation is the moral imperative (in which case, again, there are more widespread social constructs that would be immoral in that light).
I'm looking at "average" being the baseline, "why", things happen in nature. I mean, in a Man/Woman relationship there's attraction, which leads to intercourse, which leads to life being created. In the sexual process complimentary things happen. Man becomes aroused…organs enlarge…..women become aroused….lubrication is produced to make insertion easier, etc. (not meaning to get too graphic here, sorry)
This isn't the case in homosexual relations and 'work arounds' are needed.
I'm not advocating for or against. I'm mainly curious as to how homosexuality could be viewed in a baseline, natural (leaving "society" out of it) context. There is nothing 'produced' besides sexual gratification. (again, which I'm not advocating for or against)
My initial remarks weren't really concerning the article, too much….I mean, this guy has his opinion and that's up to him. I was just thinking in terms of "why".
Well, a lot of heterosexuals make use of "work arounds" of one sort or another, too. That said … there are well-documented cases of homosexual behavior outside of humans, so it's it's "natural" to that degree. But I agree that it isn't "average" if that is your definition of "natural".
If you mean, “is there an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality,” I can’t think of an obvious one…
Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests
Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows
The evolution of homosexuality: Gender bending – Genes that make some people gay make their brothers and sisters fecund
Homosexuality – a Survival Advantage for Early Man
Whew. That’s enough for now.
Whoa. Nice set of sources, @Avo. I’ll have to look through those.
+Mark Means, since this got posted to my blog rather than to here, here are some articles discussing potential evolutionary advantages around homosexuality:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html
http://www.economist.com/node/12465295
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/homosexuality-%E2%80%93-a-survival-advantage-for-early-man/
These include both potential genetic advantages and some socio-biological speculation.
Cool Dave, thanks for the info 🙂